Subject: IANA Link Relations Registry (draft-nottingham-http-link-header)

From: Sam Johnston <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 15:03:11 +0200

Mark,
The current Web Linking draft (draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06)
specifies a 'Link Relation Type Registry'. Would you be so kind as to drop
the word 'Type' from this title as it is superfluous and could some mapping
between "link relations" and "media types".

The existing registry is called 'Atom Link Relations' and has a short name
of link-relations (http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/). I
propose that we simply drop "Atom" from the title and run with "Link
Relations" in light of the fact that they are generic. Further, I propose
that the existing registry be used in place as compatibility with Atom is
retained and there are a number of resources that link to it currently -
this request should be reflected in the draft. There is enough confusion
already as an out of date HTML
version<http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/>is maintained
at the same location (last updated 2008-05-20) in addition to
the XHTML<http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml>,
XML <http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xml> and
TXT <http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.txt>versions
(last updated 2009-02-20). The reference to RFC4287 in the header
of this registry should also be updated to the "Web Linking" RFC (to be
assigned).

I hope it is not too late to accommodate these requests in the next revision
as I believe that keeping this as simple as possible will facilitate
adoption and reduce confusion.

Sam

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:39:01 +1000

It's not superfluous; there's a difference between a concrete relation  
and the type of that relation.

On 06/09/2009, at 11:03 PM, Sam Johnston wrote:

> specifies a 'Link Relation Type Registry'. Would you be so kind as  
> to drop the word 'Type' from this title as it is superfluous and  
> could some mapping between "link relations" and "media types".
>
> The existing registry is called 'Atom Link Relations' and has a  
> short name of link-relations (http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/ 
> ). I propose that we simply drop "Atom" from the title and run with  
> "Link Relations" in light of the fact that they are generic.  
> Further, I propose that the existing registry be used in place as  
> compatibility with Atom is retained and there are a number of  
> resources that link to it currently - this request should be  
> reflected in the draft. There is enough confusion already as an out  
> of date HTML version is maintained at the same location (last  
> updated 2008-05-20) in addition to the XHTML, XML and TXT versions  
> (last updated 2009-02-20). The reference to RFC4287 in the header of  
> this registry should also be updated to the "Web Linking" RFC (to be  
> assigned).
>
> I hope it is not too late to accommodate these requests in the next  
> revision as I believe that keeping this as simple as possible will  
> facilitate adoption and reduce confusion.
>
> Sam
>

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/